EB-1 wrote:
There will be an 80MP camera!? That doens't seem to be the current rumor of 45MP.
45MP is too noisy for general purpose IME.
EBH
Not the R5, the high res is rumored to be announced in Q4. If general purpose means that you require the world's best noise performance, even if it is just by a slight margin, maybe 45 is too much for you. But both that definition of general purpose and the real world margin is far into ridiculous territory.
Timothy OConn wrote:
In terms of Canon 'home-runs' there have been a lot from MY POV:
- the Digital Rebel (EOS 300) was the first DLSR I could afford, and at the time the image quality was extremely good. I sold all my Nikon Film gear to afford it
- The 20D - clearly better than anything Nikon had, who where struggling with sensor striping and transitioning from CCD to CMOS (I could be a bit off with the timelines here)
- The 40D - while it was an evolution from the 20D, it was big leap in AF and I loved it.
- The 7D/7D mk2. Extremely rugged and capable. ...Show more →
Practically every modern FF sensor has equivalent high iso performance. Canon was able to add over 1 stop of base ISO DR to the 1DX III. The hope I am sure for most would be to see an improvement in base ISO DR, which is important primarily to people that shoot at base ISO and doesn’t really matter to wildlife and action sports types.
Jesse Evans wrote:
Practically every modern FF sensor has equivalent high iso performance. Canon was able to add over 1 stop of base ISO DR to the 1DX III. The hope I am sure for most would be to see an improvement in base ISO DR, which is important primarily to people that shoot at base ISO and doesn’t really matter to wildlife and action sports types.
Yes but the 1DXIII stayed at 20MP. The jump to 45MP seems like it could be quite a task for Canon to improve DR over the 5DIV.
artsupreme wrote:
Yes but the 1DXIII stayed at 20MP. The jump to 45MP seems like it could be quite a task for Canon to improve DR over the 5DIV.
At low ISO it is actually an advantage for the DR with more pixels. It is the main explanation for the 5D IV having slightly higher DR than the 1Dx II at base ISO.
alundeb wrote:
At low ISO it is actually an advantage for the DR with more pixels. It is the main explanation for the 5D IV having slightly higher DR than the 1Dx II at base ISO.
Well if you are saying low ISO DR should be better on the R5 @ 45MP than the 5DIV @ 30MP and everything else IQ is relatively matched or better then I think that's good news.
artsupreme wrote:
Yes but the 1DXIII stayed at 20MP. The jump to 45MP seems like it could be quite a task for Canon to improve DR over the 5DIV.
I'd point out that there are other cameras with more MP than the 5DIV that also have more DR, so it's definitely possible. For instance, the 2017 vintage 45.7 MP Nikon D850.
dmcphoto wrote:
I'd point out that there are other cameras with more MP than the 5DIV that also have more DR, so it's definitely possible. For instance, the 2017 vintage 45.7 MP Nikon D850.
Dynamic Range - everyone wants it but everyone makes way too big a deal of it
Most sites report dynamic range normalized to a 8mpx print (eg they downsample 42mpx to 8mpx and 20mpx to 8mpx) at iso 100. This leads to higher mpx looking better because there are more mpx per 8mpx. This metric is informative but misses much of the story.
If you look at DPReview comparisons in their reviews you will compare performance of cameras where they are underexposed and pushed back by 1,2,3,4,5,6 stops. Which shows usable dynamic range that is useful. (ISO invariance). iso invariance is useful for action shooters who don't have to worry about exposure as much just shoot underexposed and raise the exposure after the fact without much penalty. But with skill (exposing properly) this can be offset. To date the sony sensor has beeen a stop or more better at this. Thus you can push a 6 stop under exposure on sony to look like a 5 stop underexposure on a canon.
Dynamic range at base (eg iso 100) is useful to landscape shooters who can shoot shorter [not longer- thanks snappy] shutter speeds on a tripod because they can get details from one image for shadows while not blowing out bright areas. But the gains are marginal because if there is motion you can't shoot long and generally if there isn't motion, AEB and blending does a better job on colours in shadows. Better is better but only for certain circumstance like not on the tripod or with moving leaves.
Dynamic range at > iso 800 for wildlife / sports shooters ( who can push to eg iso 16,000 to keep their shutter speed up and still get a good (worth printing) picture. It is more important for wildlife than sports because people are willing to accept more noise because of emotional involvement with subject than wildlife. Thus ISO 32,000 works for sports but for birds, unless you are a orthamologist, you might want to top out at 16,000 iSO. Pretty much every modern camera (5div, 1dxii, a7Riv, a9) has similar performance above iso800 where all pictures are taken. eg it does not matter much. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Sony-a9-versus-Sony-A7R-IV___1071_1162_1326
The real gains, given how close the camera's are in dynamic range, is mpx [for landscape], fps, burst, tracking, ergonomics, battery life, and reliability [for sports/wildlife]. We wont' know that until the R5 is tested, but I expect that not much will change but the battle cry of the brand loyalists (including me) over the marginal differences. Lets hope that the Canon battle cry is bigger
Scott Stoness wrote:
Dynamic range at base (eg iso 100) is useful to landscape shooters who can shoot long shutter speeds on a tripod because they can get details from one image for shadows while not blowing out bright areas. But the gains are marginal because if there is motion you can't shoot long and generally if there isn't motion, AEB and blending does a better job on colours in shadows. Better is better but only for certain circumstance like not on the tripod or with moving leaves.
Agreed with everything you wrote Scott except the quoted section above. When one is exposing for High DR landscapes they'll be shooting at faster shutter speeds (not slower) to protect highlights, to then later raise shadows in post. Also, landscapes usually have high DR because of the sun so all the shutter speeds will usually be fast enough either way. The only exception would be nightscapes with city lights.
Scott Stoness wrote:
Dynamic Range - everyone wants it but everyone makes way too big a deal of it
Truth.
Modern cameras all have quite good DR performance despite difference.
The DR differences are often presented in stark terms: "Camera X will give you two more stops of DR so you can photograph things that Camera Y cannot handle."
In the real world it isn't that binary.
There are basically three situations. (And even this is a simplification.)
1. The dynamic range of the scene is well within the capabilities of any modern camera. This is the most common scenario by far. Here, camera DR isn't an issue.
2. The dynamic range is so huge that no camera can capture an optimal image in a single exposure.Think of a photograph in that includes the disk of the sun and attempts to include some shadow detail in an area not in the sunlight — say a sunset seascape with the sun just behind a sea stack. To deal with this, users of any camera, from current best to worst, are going to have to work around this — multiple exposures, allowing the sun to blow out and/or shadows to be blocked, etc.
3. Dynamic range of scene is too large for one camera but not for another. This is probably the least likely scenario, though we can conceive of situations where it would occur. But here the comparison is also not a simple binary. It isn't that the high DR will work and the low DR camera will not. Rather, the gradually increasing issues of noise, etc when recovering the parts of the image that lie "outside" the DR range make the quality of the recovered area a bit more noisy, etc and would require additional work in post and/or different decisions at the time of exposure.
Also keep in mind that — as some forget — in any situation where you are pushing the DR limits you will, essentially by definition, be concerned not with what the image looks like straight out of camera, but with a) what exposure choices to make on the scene and b) what post-processing processes to apply to reduce the actual DR in the final image. (Your monitor and printer are not capable of reproducing an image with the DR of your camera anyway.)
Now, if there are two cameras (or camera systems) that are exactly equal in all ways but DR performance... why NOT get the one with better DR, at least if you are in the market for a system and you are willing to consider changing out your system?
But that never happens — no two systems are exactly equal in all ways but one, each has its pluses/minuses, cost and convenience matter, and the magnitude of the improvement matters.
Bottom line: DR is not unimportant and more is generally better, but it is often over-rated by comparison to the overall picture of camera system performance.
The DR debate was legitimate in 2014 when we were comparing the 5D Mark III to the D750 and A7r.
Canon was behind at the time. It's been 90% meaningless since the 5D Mark IV.
alundeb wrote:
At low ISO it is actually an advantage for the DR with more pixels. It is the main explanation for the 5D IV having slightly higher DR than the 1Dx II at base ISO.
One of several reasons I'm very optimistic about the R5 sensor is the 1DX3 sensor. The 1DX3 should in no way be optimized for low ISO DR and yet it's now extremely competitive with even A7r3/4.
The interesting part of R5 is actually about what Canon going to do with the pro video cameras.
If they launch full 8K capability on the R5, meaning full sensor readout, right codec and the right bits, it would only mean that their pro video cameras have to be much better in order to convince "pros" to actually pay whatever premium Canon going to charge on top of R5.
Assuming there isn't anything worth to justify say 2x the price, it would more likely mean we'd have severe limitation on the 8K. It'd be 8k alright... but something gotta give unless Canon is ditching their pro video cam in favor of their MLC market.
Now, what's interesting is the response from Sony. It's sorta general consensus that Sony has a 1-2 gen lead in the sensor department, but how they are going to make that into actual product. Maybe we'd finally see an A9R and A9S on the market.
azenis wrote:
The interesting part of R5 is actually about what Canon going to do with the pro video cameras.
If they launch full 8K capability on the R5, meaning full sensor readout, right codec and the right bits, it would only mean that their pro video cameras have to be much better in order to convince "pros" to actually pay whatever premium Canon going to charge on top of R5.
Assuming there isn't anything worth to justify say 2x the price, it would more likely mean we'd have severe limitation on the 8K. It'd be 8k alright... but something gotta give unless Canon is ditching their pro video cam in favor of their MLC market.
Now, what's interesting is the response from Sony. It's sorta general consensus that Sony has a 1-2 gen lead in the sensor department, but how they are going to make that into actual product. Maybe we'd finally see an A9R and A9S on the market....Show more →
Do you think that the likes of Red and Arri and Canon C500 and 700’s are gonna go away because things like the R5 are getting too good?
We’re talking vloggers here not movie makers. There will always be more room higher fps for better slo-mo etc.
John
